Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't imagine what the motive in such a case would be, does not thereby prove such a motive would be absent.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't imagine what the motive in such a case would be, does not thereby prove such a motive would be absent.

I am just being realistic. It is normal nature to avoid pain and go for pleasure. Like it or not, it is how most beings function unless they are Awakened.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

retrofuturist wrote:Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary.

daverupa wrote:Generally speaking, a secular Buddhist is one who makes this claim as well... Ultimately, the lack of consideration for the possibility that the primary "ism" is actually Buddhism is quite astonishing.

This seems completely at odds with what I understand "secular" to mean.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular wrote:adj.1. Worldly rather than spiritual.2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.3. Relating to or advocating secularism.4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.6. Lasting from century to century.

Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron, when you consider the purpose of the Dhamma.

Perhaps something here is being lost in translation. Perhaps what you mean by "secular" is closer to "non-denominational"? -

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nondenominational wrote:adj.Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination.

retrofuturist wrote:Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary.

daverupa wrote:Generally speaking, a secular Buddhist is one who makes this claim as well... Ultimately, the lack of consideration for the possibility that the primary "ism" is actually Buddhism is quite astonishing.

retrofuturist wrote:This seems completely at odds with what I understand "secular" to mean.

I put the Buddha's dhamma first in this way: he tells us not to spend time on speculative views; I don't. This is completely compatible with the concept of being secular because the secular is firmly grounded in what is visible here and now, aka "the worldly".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular wrote:adj.1. Worldly rather than spiritual.2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

retrofuturist wrote:Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron.

Perhaps something here is being lost in translation. Perhaps what you mean by "secular" is closer to "non-denominational"? -

If one sees Buddhism as having to do with "faith" (i.e. "faith in things not in evidence" e.g "rebirth") then Buddhism is a religion. But if one sees the Buddha as saying that that sort of faith is ill-advised, then perhaps it is not a religion. Once again, this makes Buddhism when practiced as being non-speculative, secular.

You may not agree with it, but can you see that it is logical to define it that way?

nowheat wrote:You may not agree with it, but can you see that it is logical to define it that way?

Well... I can see that you've defined it that way.

When I read "worldly" in the definition, I connect it to "worldly" goals. For example, meditating or cultivating mindfulness with the end goal to reduce anger or to learn to chillax...

What you described, however, I would describe as Agnostic Buddhism. For the purposes of this discussion feel free to replace reference to "deities" with "rebirth".

Wikipedia wrote:Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

Alex123 wrote:This is the same kind of objection that I've seen Mahayanist-turned-Catholic use. He claimed that rebirth is like death because when a person is reborn as, lets say, a coachroach, then one isn't the same person because all the past memories and personality is gone. And since this person clings to the idea of a Self that has such and such memories and personality, he couldn't accept that so he rejected rebirth.

I think the argument may have been that with personality and memory gone, rebirth is a moot point. It's hard to identify any meaningful distinction between a) a cockroach and b) a cockroach that happens to have been Lazy Eye in a past life. One could say that the cockroach will inherit Lazy Eye's kamma -- maybe get stepped on or sprayed with bug killer -- but since the roach won't be able to make the connection, the connection might as well not exist.

That's why the Mahayanist-turned-Catholic, Paul Williams, rejected Buddhism. From his point of view, it practically amounted to annihilationism.

retrofuturist wrote:It’s easy for us to regard Dhamma as primary, but for many, they are able to respect Buddhism, apply what parts of the Dhamma don’t conflict with their other “isms” and gain certain benefit from that. I do not think that should be derided – just called out for what it is. I also think it is good to be tolerant of people not placing Buddhism as their primary "ism", lest we turn them away from it and they drop it altogether.

Sure, and no derision was intended or stated. Refuge involves more than going for refuge in part of a buddha and a little bit of dhamma, regardless of one's abilities, living situation, and practice commitments. In for a penny, in for a pound.

retrofuturist wrote:Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron, when you consider the purpose of the Dhamma.

On a practical, day to day level of Buddhist interactions, I wonder how the time-honored, indispensable relationship between the laity and the ordained sangha fits with this idea of secularism?

This is one of the most important aspects of contemporary Theravāda Buddhism: That people can still ordain and devote their entire life to the three jewels, and know that they will be supported by the lay community and have their material needs of food, clothing, and shelter met.

Ñāṇa said: This is one of the most important aspects of contemporary Theravāda Buddhism: That people can still ordain and devote their entire life to the three jewels, and know that they will be supported by the lay community and have their material needs of food, clothing, and shelter met.

Yes - if you are male. There are a few places in the west for women to ordain ..... if you are under 50 years of age ..... which also have a long long waiting list.

with mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Alex123 wrote:We often see lying, backstabbing, aggressive shrewd and cunning psychopaths get to the top because they unfairly beat those who are not so aggressive and are push overs. Within the framework of one-life, they are on the top. But if we consider that there are multiple lifetimes we can consider that their victory is only for this short life and the bad kamma will catch up on them causing more trouble than it was worth.

Heaven for good people and hell for bad people? Do you really think the Dhamma is based on petty morality?

No, but I am realistic about defilements and motivations of people. When the going gets tough, one needs sufficient amount of reasons to follow Dhamma rather than something more pleasant in the short term. If there is only one life, then it is silly to cause oneself suffering and deprivation for the goal that would be achieved anyways at dying, before which one would be indulging in sensual pleasures before death - Parinibbana.

If there is rebirth than it makes full sense to follow Dhamma which may in this life lead to pain and sorrow to the point of tears only to stop much greater amount of sorrow and suffering if one didn't follow Dhamma.

There is evidence enough to be free from saṃsāra within the present continuum; the ‘faring on’ of mental recidivism. It is specious to make comparisons between the sociopath and ordinary decent people as though dukkha does not fall evenly on both.

Tradition is just the illusion of permanence.”– Woody Allen (Deconstructing Harry)